05-15-2011, 03:34 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-15-2011, 03:36 PM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1305462052' post='8326']
Hey,
I am toying with a new portrait lens (for 5d markII)It will either be the 135mm f/2 or the 100mm f/2.8 L. I already have an 85mm 1.8, but would like something longer and without so much purple fringing. the lens will be used for travel portraiture. The macro is in the mix because it will allow me to take some close-ups form time to time. What I am concerned about is the bokeh and the amount of background blur that can be achieved with the macro vs. the 135mm. Does anybody know how great the difference is? Can anybody post outdoor examples? Many thanks!
[/quote]
That it is a macro lens has no consequences for portraits. So, it just remains a preference for focal length (85 to 100mm is a small step, 135mm is quite a bit bigger a step), and max. aperture size.
The 135mm has a max. aperture size of 135 / 2 = 67.5mm.
The 100mm has a max. aperture size of 100/ 2.8 = 35.7mm.
Quite a big difference, and it will mean a lot blurrier background for the 135mm f2 L possible.
That does not mean that the 100mm f2.8 is a bad portrait lens, at all, just means you have to weigh what you find important or what you are after.
Personally, I am sure I would prefer the 135mm focal length on FF, for portrait purposes. Just the field of view that I like more than wider lenses.
Here for some reviews/write-ups touching on the portrait lens aspect of the 100mm f2.8 L IS USM:
http://neilvn.com/tangents/2009/10/30/re...0mm-macro/
http://reviews.davidleetong.com/reviews/...usm-macro/
http://jasonlloyd.co.uk/2011/05/new-lens-time/
You can of course put extension tubes on the 135mm f2 to make it close up-capable too. So both lenses can be used for close up and portrait. One offers a much bigger aperture, the other offers super IS.
Both have very smooth bokeh.
Hey,
I am toying with a new portrait lens (for 5d markII)It will either be the 135mm f/2 or the 100mm f/2.8 L. I already have an 85mm 1.8, but would like something longer and without so much purple fringing. the lens will be used for travel portraiture. The macro is in the mix because it will allow me to take some close-ups form time to time. What I am concerned about is the bokeh and the amount of background blur that can be achieved with the macro vs. the 135mm. Does anybody know how great the difference is? Can anybody post outdoor examples? Many thanks!
[/quote]
That it is a macro lens has no consequences for portraits. So, it just remains a preference for focal length (85 to 100mm is a small step, 135mm is quite a bit bigger a step), and max. aperture size.
The 135mm has a max. aperture size of 135 / 2 = 67.5mm.
The 100mm has a max. aperture size of 100/ 2.8 = 35.7mm.
Quite a big difference, and it will mean a lot blurrier background for the 135mm f2 L possible.
That does not mean that the 100mm f2.8 is a bad portrait lens, at all, just means you have to weigh what you find important or what you are after.
Personally, I am sure I would prefer the 135mm focal length on FF, for portrait purposes. Just the field of view that I like more than wider lenses.
Here for some reviews/write-ups touching on the portrait lens aspect of the 100mm f2.8 L IS USM:
http://neilvn.com/tangents/2009/10/30/re...0mm-macro/
http://reviews.davidleetong.com/reviews/...usm-macro/
http://jasonlloyd.co.uk/2011/05/new-lens-time/
You can of course put extension tubes on the 135mm f2 to make it close up-capable too. So both lenses can be used for close up and portrait. One offers a much bigger aperture, the other offers super IS.
Both have very smooth bokeh.